35. Wow are you wrong.

Really? Obama and Romney are holding tons of events in Los Angeles and New York City? No? Oh, maybe it isn't about the population centers already.

There is absolutely no reason for me to vote this year, other than the principle, because Obama isn't competing here (Indiana).

Alright, now imagine there's no reason for you to vote ever again because your area doesn't have enough people to be worth expending any effort. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

With my proposal, there would be good reason for the Obama campaign to compete in Indiana, even if they don't expect to win the state.

Math says no.

Campaigns have finite resources. They can't campaign everywhere. So they're going to campaign where they get the most votes per dollar spent.

All of Indiana is 6M people. But most of those are very spread out. Campaigning in rural areas is an utter waste of money, because so few votes would come from it.

Greater Indianapolis is around 1.5M people. 15 votes in your system. 300 votes for Greater Los Angeles. 200 votes for Greater New York. 150 votes for Greater San Francisco. If I bump the needle 6% in Indianapolis, I get 1 vote. If I bump the needle 6% in New York, I get 12 votes.

I'm not going to scrounge for 1 vote in Indianapolis when I can get 12 in New York. And abandoning New York for Indianapolis means I gain 1 vote and lose 12 to my opponent. Net -11 votes.

Even if it's hard-fought in New York, it would be stupid to abandon it for Indianapolis.

Look, this is a theoretical game for you. I'm telling you what happened when a similar system was applied to New York state government. Your theories did not work out. No one competes for the non-NYC votes. They aren't worth the money.